sb-ext:*stack-allocate-dynamic-extent* t)
(defmacro defun-with-dx (name arglist &body body)
- `(defun ,name ,arglist
- ,@body))
+ (let ((debug-name (sb-int:symbolicate name "-HIGH-DEBUG"))
+ (default-name (sb-int:symbolicate name "-DEFAULT")))
+ `(progn
+ (defun ,debug-name ,arglist
+ (declare (optimize debug))
+ ,@body)
+ (defun ,default-name ,arglist
+ ,@body)
+ (defun ,name (&rest args)
+ (apply #',debug-name args)
+ (apply #',default-name args)))))
(declaim (notinline opaque-identity))
(defun opaque-identity (x)
;; This fails on threaded PPC because the hash-table implementation
;; uses recursive system locks, which cons (see below for test
;; (:no-consing :lock), which also fails on threaded PPC).
+;;
+;; -- That may have been the situation in 2010 when the above comment
+;; was written, but AFAICT now, hash tables use WITH-PINNED-OBJECTS,
+;; which conses on PPC and SPARC when GENCGC is enabled. So neither is
+;; this actually about threading, nor about PPC. Yet since we are
+;; failing most of this file on SPARC anyway (for some tests even on
+;; cheneygc), I won't bother to mark this particular test as failing.
+;; It would be nice if someone could go through this file and figure it
+;; all out... --DFL
(with-test (:name (:no-consing :hash-tables) :fails-on '(and :ppc :sb-thread))
(assert-no-consing (test-hash-table)))
(bdowning-2005-iv-16))
(declaim (inline my-nconc))
-(defun-with-dx my-nconc (&rest lists)
+(defun my-nconc (&rest lists)
(declare (dynamic-extent lists))
(apply #'nconc lists))
(defun-with-dx my-nconc-caller (a b c)